Thursday, March 29, 2007

Asking the right questions

Radley Balko asks one of them.
Aren't those transgressions quite a bit more worthy of congressional oversight than whether or not GSA showed a partisan PowerPoint during somebody's lunch hour?

3/29/07 Benchin"

Rap, Bon Jovi, and Briney. Makes me yearn for a 40x40 garage.

Warmup: Front and side raises, face pulls, hypers, situps, and pushups.

Bench Press
2x10 @ 45
2x5 @ 95
135 x5
3x5 @ 185

OH Press
3x5 @ 95

BB Bentover Row
2x5 @ 185

Lying db ext ss w/ seated hammer curl
2x8 @ 30

Face Pull
3x12 @ 100

I didn't feel good benching, but I think I'll feel better after a coupld of sessions.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Watch this one

Just to see the difference in how you and I would be treated, and how the ruling class is treated.

As I'm sure you heard, Senator Webb's aid was caught with an unregistered firearm in the Capitol.

How much would you like to bet they even get the gun back.

Of course, this also goes into the DC gun ban, and that it is illegal for Senator Webb to have that gun in DC, which he certainly did. This is the same Congress, by the way, that wouldn't vote on overturning that ban.

Oh, and isn't it neat that Federal Law says members of Congress, or 'their agents', can transport weapons to Capitol grounds.

You and I, notsomuch.

Monday, March 26, 2007

3/26/07 Squat

Monday afternoon training session. Thank FSM for a flexible job.
Warmup: 5 mins elliptical, dynamic stretching


Good morning
2x8 @ 135

45 degree hypers

Bench situps
20, 10


Lots of stretching
All in all, not to shabby. My SI joint is still flared up, but it feels OK when I'm training. All poundages felt pretty light.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

We need government run healthcare!

Look at how well they manage underage drinking violations!
When Adam Fried was 14 he got busted at a keg party.

"There were about 30 kids there and the police came and someone must have called for noise violation or something and everyone that was there got a citation for being underage at party with beer," Fried said.

Fried faced the music and thought he did the right thing.

"I paid it and believed in all honesty that that was the end of it," Fried said.

Now, 32, and old enough to drive, the married father of one just got a blast from the past, or more accurately the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.

A letter came referring to his 1988 drinking citation, saying his driver's license is suspended for 90 days. PennDOT demanded his license.

Fried called PennDOT.

"They can only tell you that they don't make the law they enforce the law, but the law was from 19 years ago," Fried said.

So he contacted the NBC 10 investigators, who contacted PennDOT.

They said state law demands underage drinkers lose their license for at least 90 days.

"I was 14. There was no driving involved in it whatsoever," Fried said.

But the state said that doesn't matter, and if you're too young to drive when busted, they'll suspend your licenses when you get one.

PennDOT told NBC 10 they should have suspended Fried's license when he got it in 1990 when Fried was 16 and acknowledged the error was on their part.

PennDOT also said "once in a while, this happens."

But state Rep. Micheal Gerber, who represents Fried's district, said once in a while is too much.

Gerber said his office is working to get Fried's license reinstated by the end of the week.

Fried is an interior designer who said he needs to drive about 150 miles a day.

"It has been devastating just in the few days that I have not been able to drive," Fried said.

Gerber said Fried only needs to pay a $25 restoration fee. That should put the brakes on this nightmare.
Just $25, to rectify their problem. Ignoring that the law is stupid to begin with.

Educational Sex.

In Rhode Island, a woman gets probation for letting a 9 year old (her daughter) watch her and her boyfriend boink.
Rhode Island woman who routinely had sex with her boyfriend in front of her 9-year-old daughter to teach her about sex was sentenced to three years' probation, authorities said Tuesday.

Rebecca Arnold, 37, and David Prata, 33, who received the same sentence this week, told investigators they thought the practice would help the child to learn, prosecutors said.

"Basically, and I'm tempted to say idiotically, they believed it was helpful to the girl, Ms. Arnold's daughter; they believed it was helpful to her development to see them engaging in various sex acts in front of her," said Mike Healey, spokesman for state attorney general Patrick Lynch.

The pair told investigators that they allowed the girl to watch their sexual romps but did not compel her to.

Now, I'm not sure if this is or is not healthy for the 9 year old, but I have to ask - why is this the government's business? If they showed the 9 year old a porn, would that be illegal? How about talking about sex? Photos in a book?

We can talk at length about how intelligent or appropriate it is for a parent to expose her 9 year old to live sex, but do we want the government to decide for us?

And what, then, is the acceptable age?

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Preparation Phase, Cycle 1, Day 1 Lower Body

Yes. It's a training post.
Warmup - 5 mins elliptical, bodyweight squats, dynamic stretching

2x5 @ 135

Good Morning
135 x 5

45 degree hyper

Inverted situps

Flat bench situps


Lots of static stretching.
Everything felt good. Weights are pathetic, but I don't want to overdo it and hurt my back again or get too terriby sore, so we'll take several weeks to ease into it.

More, um, security. Or something

Becky Aikers on the futility of the TSA.

At the very least, we might expect them to divert the flight for an emergency landing. Perhaps they’d even notify the White House so it could authorize fighter jets to shoot down – sorry, protect the flight. The TSA did neither. Instead, it ordered "authorities" in San Juan to search not just Tom but everyone aboard once the flight landed.

Whoa! Obviously, the TSA knew that terrorists weren’t threatening the plane. So why was the agency involved? Because, like all Federal enforcers, the TSA seeks to control us, not terrorists. Witness the warrantless, anti-Constitutional search it requested from San Juan’s cops: we can’t have passengers getting hold of contraband, now, can we?

Meanwhile, we’ve got a plane mid-flight with a "criminal" and contraband aboard. It’s also carrying two air marshals, who, when they aren’t shooting passengers, theoretically protect them. But the TSA never told them anything was amiss. That heartens those of us who understand the real purpose of air marshals. But it should infuriate everyone who swallows the Feds’ propaganda. There reclined two of the Homeland’s sworn defenders, blissfully ignorant of potential catastrophe. Just as well: that ignorance allowed the flight to land without casualties. The passengers were groped, their bags rifled, and poor Tom arrested.

So is the TSA completely irrelevant or what? Despite the elaborate checkpoint charade, contraband made it aboard this flight – and who knows how many others. (Spokesguy Christopher White blustered that "... no weapons were brought through the security checkpoints..." Duh. No, just around them.) And not any old contraband, either, but guns, which, from the way the TSA carries on, cause planes to self-destruct. Isn’t that why its minions search us as though we’re felons entering a maximum-security prison? Yet these incredibly lethal objects, these bêtes noires so dangerous that "violations" of the TSA’s ban on them "can result in criminal prosecution and civil penalties of up to $10,000," sailed harmlessly through the air for 1200 miles.
The TSA did, however, keep you safe from my toothpaste.

An Instructional Video

How to open a beer with a piece of paper.

Via Emily.

Monday, March 19, 2007


Dan the Bar Man, who in 2005 had a drink in 1000 bars has an article in Forbes!

How cool is that?!?!

Funny how the market works.

NASCAR has a 'Drive for Diversity' program, designed to bring more not white male people into the sport as drivers, owners, and crew members. Thus far, the program has pretty much been a failure, with only one non-white driver in any of the three major series (Bill Lester).

Leave it to a team owner, one Rusty Wallace, to add a non white driver to his development program. Why?
Austin will join Steve Wallace, the youngest son of NASCAR legend Rusty Wallace, as one of the two drivers currently competing under the RWI banner. Wallace and Austin will pilot identically painted No. 66 HomeLife Communities Dodge Chargers prepared at the state-of-the-art RWI complex, located just north of Charlotte, NC. Though he is only 17 years old, Austin has won more than 100 feature races in go-karts, stock cars and sprint cars.

How about that. He can win! We go on to learn...
Much like Rusty Wallace, Austin competed and won, in the Midwest-based American Speed Association before deciding to make the jump to NASCAR. With that in mind, Wallace, one of NASCAR’s top-ten all-time winningest drivers and ABC / ESPN’s Lead Auto Racing Analyst, is eager to help Austin become a pioneering and successful African American driver in one of NASCAR’s touring series and beyond.

The NASCAR Busch East Series features 13 races, plus the NASCAR All-Star Showdown event, at 12 tracks, using cars similar to those in the NASCAR Busch Series.

Noted Wallace, “When we started looking at ways to grow our team, NASCAR brought Chase Austin to our attention. We ended up inviting him to a test at Greenville-Pickens Speedway and we were all very pleasantly surprised at how well he did,” Wallace continued, “I believe that Chase has a real future in this sport. Not only is he fast, but he understands the sponsorship and public relations side of things, which is definitely unique for someone his age.”

He can win, and he's able to deal with sponsors, and be a positive spokesman.

“While Chase is not a part of the Drive for Diversity program, we all definitely support it and fully believe in the cause,” Wallace said, “Right now though, Chase just wants to focus on driving for Rusty Wallace, Inc. and learning what it takes to win races at a higher level. We’re going to give Chase everything he needs to do just that. I really believe that he’s going to have a great year; if it goes as well as we hope, we could potentially be looking at Steve (Wallace) having a Busch Series teammate in 2008.”

Be good at what you do, find success. Regardless of what you look like. Without a special program. How about that.

Always pay attention.

Otherwise, the keeper will score.


Today, the occupation of Iraq is 4 years old.

Boy, that's working out well. And the President, well, he's got a plan. Or something.
“If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, a contagion of violence could spill out across the entire country.

“In time, this violence could engulf the region. The terrorists could emerge from the chaos with a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they had in Afghanistan, which they used to plan the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. For the safety of the American people, we cannot allow this to happen.”

Because the invasion and occupation, well that didn't cause the problem.

Friday, March 16, 2007

A travesty.

As Ed Norris says, "If you aren't pissed off, you aren't paying attention."

Another Raich ruling, another blow to your rights. The Liberty Papers has a nice writeup. I won't add much to it, other than to mention that I've talked about this before. The application of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to, well, everything is going to become a very, very big problem.

This marijuana never crossed a state line. It was never bought or sold. Yet somehow, the interstate commerce clause trumps a law approved by the people of California.
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything-and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Justice Thomas' dissent. And he's right. We keep allowing the Federal government rights it was never allowed, rights that can and will affect all of us.

It's got to stop.


I spent the night in Islandia, NY Wednesday night. I had an afternoon meeting in Smithtown, NY, and trying to get back to Baltimore after driving the 5 hours up there is just a bit too much.

Just in case you think business travel is glamorous:

I had dinner sitting by myself at the bar at a TGI Fridays.
I watched Return of the Jedi

Exciting, huh?

By the way, I don't understand how New Yorkers do it. I guess it's no wonder they all seem angry all the time. If I had to do that commute every day I'd be angry too. It took two hours to get from Islandia to the NJ Turnpike. It's like 40 miles. Most of that time was spent travelling a 3 mile stretch of the Cross Bronx "Expressway".

I know traffic in and around Baltimore sucks, but we know it sucks, and know exactly when and where it will suck every day. NY traffic is totally unpredictable. I've gone over the GW bridge in 5 minutes, and it's taken me 90 minutes, at pretty much the same time of day. You never know until you get there.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Blogging about Blogging

I was thinking today about how few people read my blog, and what that means.

It's not that it's important to me, I'd blog if no one read it. It gives me an opportunity to clear some thing out of my head, to make a point or two, and track my training, when I'm actually training.

I spent some time reading some blogs that are well read, and wondered the difference.

This is one difference.

What fantastic writing.

It won't be long before there is no satire.

Global warming causes cancellation of Arctic trip.

Because it was colder than expected.

You can't make this stuff up. Hopefully more people will get more skeptical.

From the groundbreaking research news department...

Human longevity is genetic.


Who woulda thunk it?

Consent or Coersion?

Excellent read by Christian Sandstrom at Lew Rockwell.
As noted by Rothbard among others, the fundamental difference between the state and the market is spelled coercion. Human interaction on a market is based upon mutual consent: goods and services won’t be exchanged unless both parties think they benefit from it. The state, on the other hand, thrives upon coercion: taxes are collected under the threat of violence and if laws are not followed your only option is jail. Thus, state action is not based upon mutual consent, rather it is based upon the most primitive and uncivilized of human actions: violence. The Chinese mass murderer and dictator, Mao Tse-Tung, once said that all political power comes through the barrel of a gun. Another illustrative example is a poster that the Swedish libertarian association "The freedom front" produced. It contained a picture of a man pointing a rifle at you, followed by the text "I am from the government, I am here to help you."

This not only illustrates the true nature of the state, but also how preposterous the idea that someone who is threatening you would want to cause you anything but harm. If someone wanted to do you good, why then would they have to force you into doing this? The American hard-rock group Guns n’ Roses put this in the following way in their song "Civil war": "you can’t trust freedom when it’s not in your hands." Wouldn't it be strange if someone robbed you and then spent the money on you, in a way you find preferable? Why then, would the criminal have to steal the money in the first place?

To be more precise, the definition of freedom is that your life is in the hands of you, not anyone else. Though the fundamental difference between the state and the market is that one is based upon coercion and the other one on consent, there are everyday examples of coercion (related to state) that can help to illustrate this distinction. By looking at these examples and by drawing parallels to state action, the truly absurd nature of government is revealed.
Read the rest, it's good stuff.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Recently, in the comments section of another blog, I was informed I have a 'limited point of view' when it comes to understanding the Constitution and its relevance to solving social ills.

What's interesting is that while suggesting I am not nearly sophisicated enough to understand why the Constituion implies things it doesn't say, my argument is never actually refuted. (I made the argument that the labor market is the same as the baseball market, and there is no reason to have a regulation forcing purchasers of labor to purchase labor from specific groups any more than there should be regulation on the purchasers of baseballs.) That's pretty common. You'll find the use of a simple logical question will pretty much stop intelligent debate, and instead have a discussion revert back to the crazy mean spirited Libertarian being too obtuse to recognize the nuances in an argument based solely on emotion and prior (often incorrect) legal rulings.

And the solution proposed by the Left Liberals? Why, the government.

The solution to workplace discrimination: Government
The solution to the 'healthcare crisis': Government
The solution to 'global warming': Government
The solution to income disparity: Government
The solution to obesity: Government.

Me? The guy who says there might be another more effective solution that doesn't involve increasing the power of the government and might eliminate unintended results? The guy who suggests there might be a solution that is actually better than government regulation; a solution that would make *insert minority group here* even better off, all without violating the property right of others (and, oh by the way, making sure the government doesn't have more power to violate the rights of whatever minority group in favor of some other group in the future)? I'm the one with a limited point of view.

[Edit: Just in case it isn't clear, I happen to consider Stash a good guy and a friend. He's smart, has a great sense of humor, and he's a heck of a chef, if photos are any indication. We just don't agree all the time when it comes to politics. That doesn't make him a bad person, just like it doesn't make me a bad person. The posts on his blog happened to coincide with another conversation, all together resulting in this particular post.]

Monday, March 12, 2007

Paul for President!

No, not me.

Ron Paul. He's announced he's running.
Paul, a nine-term congressman who represents a district just south of Houston that includes Galveston and stretches along the Gulf Coast nearly to Corpus Christi, describes himself as a lifelong Libertarian running as a Republican.

Paul has spent most of his career outside the GOPs traditional circles. He limits his view of the role of the federal government to those specifically laid out in the U.S. Constitution. As a result, he sometimes casts votes that appear at odds with his constituents and other Republicans.

Paul, for example, was the only Republican congressman to vote against Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2007, which he opposed because of the war in Iraq — a war he says is "not necessary for our actual security."

He once described President Bush as "not a constitutional president" and voted against a resolution declaring that the United States would win the war on terror.

He acknowledges that the national Republican Party has largely shunned him despite his nine terms in office under its banner. He gets little money from the GOP's large traditional donors, but benefits from individual conservative and Libertarian donors outside Texas.

Will he win? Of course not. With rampant Statism the order of the day in both parties, certainly a Classical Liberal has no chance. What his candidancy will do, however, is bring to light the differences between people who say they are for smaller government, and people who really are for smaller government.

Of course, this wasn't covered anywhere by the national media... it's an AP story that I found on a couple of Libertarian type sites, and local Texas newspapers. Meanwhile, Chuck Hagel's lack of an announcement got national press. Go figure.

Oh, and to John McCain: Please don't have me arrested. This is not a campaign contribution.

Wiretapping you is secret. So you can't prove we are wiretapping you illegally.

Unless, of course, we accidentally send you a copy of the report. And you are representing a group we think are terrorists.

This is the case that has the best chance against the government, as it's the only one where the plaintiff can prove the wiretapping happened.

For those keeping score: The government tracked these calls between a lawyer and a group they think are terrorists. Then they sent them a report telling them so.

Because that's how you win against terrorists.


Quick review:

Not as good as the movie. Not as good as everyone seemed to think.

However, it's funny, and worth going to see.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Good gun news

A Federal court ruled that the DC ban on having a gun in your home is a clear violation of the Constitution.

It took a while, but they got to the right place. I heard briefly on the news last night that Maryland is considering loosening the very restrictive carry laws.

The most impressive argument was from a grandmother who didn't think it right that rich white guys who carry a lot of money can carry, but a poor black grandmother raising her 3 grandkids in a questionable neighborhood can't protect herself.

Sweet. Everyone has a little Libertarian in them.

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Divine Presidency.

Radley Balko on God in the White House.

I had a similar conversation with a coworker over some cocktails one night last week. Rights and morality can indeed come from your humanity. I know plenty of atheists who I hold in much higher regard from a moral standpoint than believers.

The 10 Commandments pretty much sum up property rights, don't they?

Monday, March 5, 2007

The New Scientific Method

From JunkScience: The IPCC Report.

Please note:
Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

So, the science must be approved by the politicians prior to publication.

Yeah, I'm running right out to get my Prius.

Meet the Press, For Idiots

Now this is funny.

Airport Security: Still indeed a joke.

On Monday, I flew out of BWI Airport. (I was unfortunately not delayed heading to 4 days of meetings in Atlanta). I performed the government required completely unconstitutional security procedure, including showing my ID, taking off my shoes, and putting my laptop in a plastic container, because that's clearly better than leaving it in a briefcase. Or something.

Not a problem.

Leaving Atlanta on Thursday (after having rushed to the airport to get on an earlier flight to avoid the tornadoes), I encounter an issue. My bag is stopped in the x-ray machine.

Perhaps the pins in the new shirt set it off.


Crack TSA Employee: Sir, is there anything in here that might stick me?

Me, trying to put on my highly dangerous and subversive shoes: Just some pins in a new shirt

Crack TSA Employee: That's no problem. Please do not touch the bag while I am going through it... what's this? Hmmmm... toiletries. Sir, do you have a clear plastic quart bag?

Me, realising this man is about to take my highly dangerous hair gel, toothpaste, and shaving cream: No, I thought that clear zipper bag would be acceptable.

Crack TSA Employee, sternly: Sir, these must be in a clear plastic ziplock bag. I'll have to take them, unless you go get a bag.

Me, looking forward to blogging about this: I think I'll pass going back out and getting a bag. Does it have to be Ziplock, or will any brand do? And just so we are clear, the only reason you are taking those is that they are not in a clear Ziplock bag - if they were, there would be no issue at all, right?

Crack TSA Employee: Yes.

Me, gathering my stuff: Do you guys realize just how stupid that is?

What bothers me the most, beside the stupidity and the violation of basic rights, is that they still are not consistent! The same bag, with the same stuff, went right through at BWI.

Been a while

I was out of town last week, and took the weekend off from the internet (mostly to keep myself from working.)

I was out in the field today, just got home and online. I have a few posts bouncing around in my little head, including my experience with crack airline security and an update on my planning/goals post from the beginning of the year.

You'll see training posts start back up on Wednesday.